The Violence Against Women Act (V A W A) Stinks To High Heaven

The US House Of Representatives votes on reauthorization of The Violence Against Women Act tomorrow, May 16 2012.

The unnecessary Act smacks of female privilege to begin with. There is not more violence against women than against men. There is much more violence against men than against women. How can treating violence against one gender as less important than violence against the other gender be justified?

Widespread Civil Rights Violations Under
the Violence Against Women Act

Partner abuse is an important social problem, and domestic violence programs have helped many needy individuals. But many believe that the Violence Against Women Act is at the root of widespread civil rights violations of millions of innocent Americans.

These complaints come from a broad range of groups:
Independent Women’s Forum: “Men may become alienated from and hostile to the system in the conviction that it is stacked against them.”
Ms. Foundation for Women: “Some women are arrested as a result of false accusations by their
batterers.”
Eagle Forum: “VAWA funds the re-education of judges and law enforcement personnel to teach them…how to ride roughshod over the constitutional
rights of men.”

How does the Violence Against Women Act – and the 1,500 state laws it has spawned -- violate the civil rights of Americans?

Judicial Education

VAWA funds the training of judges and law enforcement personnel. These programs are often biased and factually-misleading. i

In one New Jersey program, a judge dispensed this advice: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional protections of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’” ii

Restraining Orders

VAWA-funded training programs encourage judges to grant restraining orders. Now, 2-3 million restraining orders are issued each year. iii About 15% of these orders are issued against women.

In most states, domestic violence is defined so broadly that almost anything qualifies as “abuse.” A study by the Massachusetts Trial Court found that less than half of the domestic orders involved even an allegation of physical violence. Attorneys say judges treat temporary restraining orders like a rubber-stamping exercise and that subsequent hearings are often a “sham.”

Harry Stewart, a lay minister in Weymouth, Mass., opened the door of his ex-wife’s apartment building to help his 5-year-old son get inside. That was considered a technical violation of the restraining order. Stewart was required to serve a six-month jail sentence.

Arrest Policies

As a result of VAWA, 22 states have mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence, and 8 states that encourage arrest. Such laws often pressure police
officers to ignore basic legal considerations of probable cause.

Research shows over half of all partner aggression is mutual.iv But VAWA discourages dual arrests, even when both persons show signs of injury.

Further aggravating the problem is VAWA’s promotion of “primary aggressor” laws.v Now, 24 states have primary aggressor laws, which in practice become a form of gender profiling.

Former New England Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson was arrested for allegedly assaulting his wife. But a week later, his wife had a different story
to tell: “My husband, I adore him, and, it was my fault,” explained Jackie Johnson. “It breaks my heart to think I would be responsible with one emotional, irresponsible call in destroying this beautiful man's reputation.”

Adjudication

Adjudication procedures for domestic violence cases often give short-shrift to due process protections.

For example under a “Fast Track” system used in Colorado, persons charged with domestic violence are not allowed legal representation. As one female defendant put it, “It ain’t about justice, that’s for sure.” 1

In Warren County, Pennsylvania, persons arrested on a charge of domestic violence are given two options: Go to jail, or sign a pre-printed form that
says, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The procedures eliminate any possibility the defendant will be adjudged as innocent.

“Innocent until proven guilty” has been replaced with “guilty with no opportunity to prove innocence.”

Services for Male Victims

Research has consistently shown that women are just as likely – or even more likely -- to commit domestic violence as men.

Yet men represent less than 5% of persons whoreceive VAWA-funded victim services. So in 2000 the U.S. Senate directed the Department of Justice to “ensure that men who have been victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault will receive benefits and services” under VAWA. vi
Despite that mandate, men who seek VAWAfunded services continue to be met with ridicule, hostility, and outright rejection. One director of
a Washington state shelter admitted, “Whenever I speak of male abuse, I am met with disbelief and, even worse, laughter.” vii

Families and Children At Risk

Allegations of domestic violence are made in the context of a divorce proceeding. Analysts say a large number of those allegations are made simply to gain a legal edge.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, once noted, “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply…In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

When children are removed from daily contact with one of their parents – usually their father – they are placed at far greater risk of child abuse, academic difficulties, and legal problems.

The Intrusion of State Power

The Violence Against Women Act was originally conceived with good intentions – to reduce partner violence. But over time, VAWA’s ability to intervene in every marital dispute and impose criminal penalties for even minor incidents has left millions of innocent Americans caught up in a system that ignores their rights, their wishes, and their needs.

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children says, “Americans’ most fundamental constitutional protections and human rights are violated openly, intentionally, and systematically.” viii The Ms. Foundation for Women sums up the problem this way: “Unfortunately, when state power has been invited into, or forced into, the lives of individuals, it often takes over.” ix

Time to Reform VAWA

The intrusion of the government into the affairs of families and couples and the criminalization of private activity lies at the heart of civil rights abuses of the Violence Against Women Act.

It’s hard to think of any other law that has cost the American taxpayer so much, has lead to the breakup of so many families, has violated the civil rights of so many innocent citizens, and has done so little to help women.

RADAR is spearheading the VAWA Reform Coalition, a group of organizations around the country that is working to educate the public about VAWA abuse: www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Reform-Coalition-Declaration.pdf

Excerpted from "The Violence Against Women Act and The War on Men" by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., at http://x.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/the-violence-against-women-act-and-the-war-on-men/

VAWA has been pivotal in the destruction of the family by depriving fathers of their civil rights, due process rights, and their right to cross-examine those who falsely accuse them of DV — most notably during divorce proceedings. VAWA also provides free legal services to purported women victims while simultaneously denying free legal services to men.
VAWA most effectively destroys families through temporary Restraining Orders. Gone are the days when physical evidence of DV was required and cross-examination was permitted to help judges distinguish between false and true allegations. In today’s courts, a woman can allege to a judge (without the accused being present) that she was the victim of DV and is requesting a restraining order based on “expanded” definitions of DV. “Expanded” definitions include vague senses of discomfort, fears, and “Economic DV” (where the man did not fulfill the woman’s economic wants).

Judges virtually always grant VAWA restraining orders to women “just to be on the safe side” even when there is no tangible evidence of threat — just the woman’s non-verifiable internal purported feelings. Tragically, however, the consequences to children, fathers, and families are very tangible. With the restraining order in hand, the police remove the father from the home (often in the middle of the night) with nothing but the shirt on his back, order him to stay out of his home and away from his wife and children, and immediately begin paying child support to the woman who just “stole” his children and his home from him.

Conceptualclarity : Note "in Colorado, persons charged with domestic violence are not allowed legal representation." My own aunt, who lives in Colorado, was horribly victimized by the corrupt DV infrastructure. She complained about the job that was being done by a home health care worker for her husband, disabled with Parkinson's Disease. He retaliated with a false accusation of domestic abuse. My aunt was thrown in jail for several weeks and her husband was put in a nursing home. While my aunt languished in jail, her husband died. I think it is a absolutely abominable thing for an innocent person to be deprived of the opportunity to be at her spouse's deathbed. She never was convicted of anything, but the damage was done. The tragic case of my aunt and uncle shows how it is the feminist Left, not the Right, that brings improper intrusion of government into the homes of Americans.

Fight against the nonsense that the DV infrastructure status quo is good and right! And if you read this story before the May 16 vote in the US House of Representatives, please contact your congressman. You can find his website via www.house.gov.

Unfortunately this act had passed and alas I am one of the victims of it. Strangely it is hard to admit, i am one of the males who was abused and yet... I was the one who got arrested and convicted all because I tried to defend myself against dangerous woman who abuses drugs and suffers from borderline personality disorder.

Why is this thread still going? Yawn.<br /><br />It's ironic though. There are so many men that insist that men are bigger, better, stronger. So, if your woman lashes out at you, grab her by the wrists and say, "OK! I'm listening!"<br /><br />I do NOT advocate violence and I'm not trying to diminish the concerns of it. But, the whole argument over who starts the violence is insane. It takes two to tango. Women who are with violent partners need to LEAVE! Men who are with violent partners need to LEAVE! While there are examples of stalking and other extreme behaviors, most domestic disputes arise between people who have ****** up perspectives on what love it.<br /><br />Plain and simple.<br /><br />Ok. It's Friday. Everyone get naked.

It isn't so easy to leave when you have nowhere to go. Despite the stance of some feminists that women are just as strong and capable as men, fact is a woman forced to live rough presents a much greater target than a man. If she's got small children too, well that's too vulnerable for a civilised society to tolerate

Dear Ladies, <br /><br />I tried to find some statistics on female initiated violence. Of course, I’d still like to read what you find on women initiated violence. <br /><br />This was some interesting information. I don’t know if it is true or what all of the contexts are, but when male violence on women is mentioned in articles, I think it behooves the authors to be as fair as possible. Unfortunately, the PBS programme, which was put together with the assistance of experts on violence, was not. If it were, it might have mentioned seriously some of the following excerpts that I post here. <br /><br />Women, as MissFreeAgain and others have noted, are violent, too. Sometimes, even frequently, very much so. Something is very wrong with the education system, both in schools and in the family. Look at the PBS show, for instance, or the media, or just look around!! Ha, ha. Not that it is REALLY funny, it isn’t. But the pathetic fix we are in is. <br />California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner. Their most common reasons: (1) my partner wasn't listening to me; (2) my partner wasn't being sensitive to my needs; and (3) <br />I wished to gain my partner's attention.<br /><br />A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an ob<x>ject thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention, at Academic of Emergency Medicine<br />University of Pennsylvania Professor Richard Gelles states: "Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The wom<br />en reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men," in his article reprinted at The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence.<br /><br />I hope you’re having a good day!<br />Best, <br />Room

Actually when I worked at the DV shelter which was for women and children (the mens dv shelter was seperate and 2 blocks away - because of a old state laws and funding issues)

There were classes for these women and children, being abused means you are likely to abuse, witnessing abuse means your more likely to abuse, it talked extensively about "victim" syndrome and the dangers, and taught that leaving is better than retaliating.

For all the average people stopping by I must apologise for my angry outbursts. I loss my temper why feminist sometimes despite my best efforts. For some reason I have a low tolerance for bullshit. And feminist are full of it. <br />To the feminists you will get absolutely no apology from me for what I said. You deserve every word of it and many more.

Dear All, <br /><br />Yes, I noticed the deletion of comments, which was very sad. If people are going to stoop to that (women or men), then how can there be communication?<br /><br />As I said before, there is much propaganda in regard to VAWA, so unfortunately it is hard to determine the actual value or lack of value of that law. <br /><br />Here are some recent articles/comments that I have seen that make me realise this is a war, a war that is currently and obviously very much against men, if we can take the media’s presentation of what is going on as a barometer reading of society. Again, that is sad, because the genders can’t do much with each other with the hatred of a war. I don’t know about men, and there are probably some men who do this, too, but some feminists probably enjoy the war. Enjoying a war, getting Shadenfreude from it, if you will, is misguided. And sadly, too, I can’t blame any men who would support a VAMA – the Violence Against Men Act - and the industry that goes with it (helping men, and some women, and lifelong jobs for those who get involved). For hateful people, it will also be a perfect place to get legal and supported revenge, whilst leaving society even more in tatters as if the current war isn’t enough. <br /><br /><br />I can’t blame the men who would support VAMA, because society is obviously very tilted against men now. How do I know? Just read the press! Meet college age girls/women, or older ones! The word ‘shocking’ is an understatement. <br /><br />I will stay out of this ‘War’. I have learned and that is what I desired. I wanted peace even more, but with this war, that isn’t going to happen. I will continue to look for women who are open-minded and who realise that both genders have the ability to treat each other badly, and who wants a fair peace and loving communication that goes with it, and who are not interested in being continually, the soldier, and who realise that support for a mindless war helps no one, man or woman, except in the most shallow and self-profiting ways. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Here are some typical headlines from mainstream media, which shows obviously, that things have gone too far with open hatred against all men and boys. My apologies if some of you have already seen some of these headlines:<br /><br />Story of vengeful jilted dentist WAS too good to be true<br />By Erin Tennant, Special to msnbc.com<br /><br /><br />‘A hugely popular news story about a jilted dentist accused of pulling out all her ex-boyfriend's teeth has unraveled as a hoax.<br />News websites around the world ran the story last week about a woman in Poland named Anna Maćkowiak who took revenge on a man named Marek Olszewski when he turned up at her clinic complaining of toothache, days after dumping her for another woman.’<br /><br />My words: Not even an apology to the men, and boys,(and women and girls, too), who might suffer from a copycat experience due to this ‘hugely popular’ and ‘too good to be true’ story. And I’m not going to be too enthusiastic if some persons here want to blame the victim, or laugh about it. The victim of this is men and boys, and women, too, and that is true whether or not it should have been recognized as a ‘hoax’. The media has an immense power. The ‘people’ , particularly men and boys, are the ‘in danger’ victims here.<br /><br />Here is a letter from a teenager in high school. The open hatred, which all of these cultural wars is contributing to, is shocking! The student is talking about girls, here, filled with extremely violent thoughts, that I as a male in high school never even heard. Is the culture war a danger to men and boys (and girls and women, too)? I think yes.<br /><br />May 16, 2012 MSN letter<br />As a teenager, reading this article it surprises me and than again... not so much. The world, the hate, its normal, something you expect. Sitting in U.S. History class, listening to girls run their mouth about ex's and their new girlfriends. I have heard, "Im going to curb stomp her." "lets slit her throat". "Lets cut his penis off". Or, my personal fav... "lets murder her and let her bleed".. Seriously? Jealous much? Im telling you....<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Or this new Slate article posted at MSN. <br /><br />‘Gender’s Double Standard When Teachers Abuse Kids <br />When male teachers have sex with students, nobody laughs.’ <br /><br />http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/05/gabriela_compton_received_lifetime_probation_for_sexually_abusing_two_boys_.html<br /><br />Don’t be fooled by the headline at MSN. That was some kind of a tease. The article goes onto say that men do stay in jail longer - a terrible injustice!! That should be shouted about to the high heavens!! – but then the female writer does all she can to explain how it is fair, these longer sentences for men, and that these men deserve it. Fair justice is obviously gone! <br /><br />Over-the-top feminism, revenge spirited females (there are a few here at Experience Project), VAWA (specifically, I refer to the name itself; it is grossly biased and lends support to others, ANYONE, who wants to bash men) and duped men lend themselves to this dangerously unbalanced zeitgeist. I think sociologists call it a social inversion. A social inversion, by its very nature, cannot bring justice to all. <br />Thus, All, men and women, should be concerned and not so partisan. Support for a change in the name of the VAWA act, would be a symbolic start. Success in changing the name of it, and looking sincerely at other reform, by women and men, with the mandatory arrests required by many states’ Domestic Violence laws, for example, would also be very helpful and would begin to ease the terrible danger that men and boys, and women and girls, too, are in due to the red hot culture war which is causing a tremendous amount of collateral damage and psychological harm. <br /><br />I am not saying that some laws, laws with justice in mind, do not help people. Of course, they do. But serious reforms are obviously desired by some, a some who should not be callously ignored, and a toning down is needed, through fair justice and wisdom, of this very damaging culture war. <br /><br />All the best,<br />Room

Now, if I want to accuse someone, I would say it directly to them. So, no, you are not the one, or more, I’m talking about.

If you think, ‘I found some of your claims to be unfair and without proper merit,’ then please tell me what they are?

I don’t think it’s unfair to be worried about how men and boys are being treated. Certainly, I’ve been concerned about how women have been treated, but now I’m quite concerned about men and boy’s situation as well. That is something new for me. Nor is it unfair to think some men and others, if they desire it, should support a VAMA, due to the obvious hatred and calls for extreme violence against men and boys by some women, and the media (often female writers, editors, publishers; I know. I’ve been reading the mainstream media and collecting the tripe.). Personally, I prefer peace, but it’s obvious that too many others don’t even know what the word means, and yes, that worries me, whether they are men or women.

And it is well known there are numbers, the numbers are unknown, of people who desire revenge; the ones I’ve run into here, and elsewhere, do it solely with me, it seems, due to gender, and what they can get away with. The media these days certainly seems to be anti-men and boys, so it would seem that probably adds fuel to women who like to casually abuse men. Yes, I’ve run into on Exp Project before. No doubt there are men in the men’s movement who are into it for revenge as well. These are the kind of reasons that I join neither movement. I can’t put up with that kind of evil and misguidedness, the revenge-oriented types who want to harm innocent others, and at the same time not even solve their genuine problems. A movement is a perfect cover for this type to get revenge on easy innocents. These persons are going down, and they want to take the world with them.

In addition, I’ve said the name of a law, VAWA, is biased. Well, that’s about it.

Take care. I hope all is well with you. A beautiful day, today! Was your day a good one?

Dear conceptualclarity, In our current zeitgeist, that does not surprise me. Anything that is contributing to that mindset should be closelly examined, whatever the source. And so that there is no confusion, that includes extreme feminism, or laws, that are unfair in name, or in their details.All the best, Room

The feminists have not only aggressively spammed this story with filibustering, so that it will take some time to go through everything, given the fact that I cannot make EP my whole life. They have also aggressively voted each other up (note 10 likes for Lilt and large numbers of likes in the other first column feminist comments), and they have deleted three comments by men by gang-disliking or "flagged by the community as unhelpful.". I don't ob<x>ject, of course, to people voting up what they like; I note it because it demonstrates who we are dealing with here.<br /><br />It is very offensive to me that hostile visitors should come to my story and delete comments by my allies. Therefore I serve notice that every time the feminists delete a man's comment by gang-disliking or "flagging as unhelpful," I will exercise my prerogative as author to administer punishment by deleting the comment and / or subthread from which the man's comment has been deleted. And I will also delete all comments bitching about what I'm doing. If you want to play hardball, hardball is what you will get.<br /><br />The credibility of one of the pastes I deleted was well demonstrated by its assertion that "Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined." By a liberal estimate, 2% of injury-related ER visits by women are caused by domestic violence.<br />http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2003/MC_dv_month.htm<br />Although I can't find it again right now, I read somewhere that a larger proportion of such injuries to women were caused by animals. This demonstrates what many of us know--there is nothing in the world more unreliable than statistics peddled by feminists. And I will delete any reposting of that lie.

In response to playing hardball, you may choose to censor as you please but, don't act as if it is something "new" you've censored since day one. Also don't act as if it is in response to feminists, as it is not.I do not know for sure but I am pretty sure some of the missing comments were 1. One in which knig acting like greenie called all women liars, all feminists liars and called out people by screennames to call them liars, he misspelled liars as liers. 2. I think another one or two actually belonged to me.

P.s. I think the rest were greenbeans who has to be fair enraged the general public as of late, he has been supporting **********, *********** and a few other "causes" that have gained him quite a hate club, his opposition is not just "the feminisits" but pretty much everyone on EP... he has several stories written about him in the I Want To Improve EP group demanding he be banned or whatever and the people calling for this aren't the EP members who you refer to as "the feminists".... so its not fair to punish "the feminists" for anything bad that happens...too much conspriracy too little fact

Sounds to me like you are just mad that people do not agree with your post. Maybe you should not write about such controversial subjects, if you cannot handle the response. Your buddies comments were voted down, because all they did was call everyone liars. Is that the kind of discussion you were looking for?

As a Canadian I must confess to knowing very little about V.A.W.A. It is my understanding though, that in the case of a domestic dispute with violence that the alleged perpetrator is automatically removed from the home and an arrest is made. Previously the victim would be asked if she or he wanted to press charges, many times the terrified victim would decline knowing that he/ she would have hell to pay once perp is back. Imagine being a police officer and having to leave a violent, angry individual ( male or female) in the home with the victim ( male or female) and with children in that environment! <br />Certainly there are those rare cases where idiots lie and manipulate the system but I do believe the incidence of removing a violent, dangerous, angry person from the home and thereby protecting the victim and children far outweigh the rare case of wrongful arrest.<br />I do also need to point out that an angry 200 lb, 6 ft tall male is far more dangerous and threatening then a 125lb 5'4 ft female ( without a weapon)! I would love to ask any of the men here just how often they have felt physically afraid of a female person? I coud ask the ladies the same question in the reverse and I can assure you with 100% accuracy that most if not all women at some point in their lives have been physically afraid of a male. This is why women don't like to travel alone in dark places at night!!!

Yes the reason the VAWA promotes a "pro arrest" stance is because previously in instances of DV the victim would have to "press charges" for an arrest to be made, the act now asks law officers to evaluate certain criteria and arrest when warranted regardless of the victims willingness to "press charges"

Originally VAWA was in favor of mandatory arrest, which meant in all cases of DV where proof of violence was present the perpatrators where to be arrested. This lead to "dual arrests" where if the victim fought back or defended themselves the law still had to "arrest" them... so VAWA also promotes a primary aggressor policy, so the abuser goes to prison.

Because America has become a opposition society...which means things that are not naturally "opposites" are posed against one another so that everything is based on doing and being the opposite of something else, this way noone notices when nothing ever actually gets done and noone has to judge anything or anyone on their individual merits...Example men vs women, republican vs democrat...

Republicans aren't waging a war on women, they are waging a war on democrats, and they are okay if women are the collateral damage.

Gumshoejane, there is something seriously wrong about you approving of a woman being able to expel a man from his house merely by making an unsupported accusation of domestic violence. Your remarks about "there are those rare cases where idiots lie and manipulate the system...the rare case of wrongful arrest." are totally out of touch. In cases where a marriage is on the rocks, false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse are absolutely ROUTINE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvBt7Ry16uM&amp;feature=relmfuI hope that your seeing the light on this does not have to come many years from now from grievous things happening to your son.

CC I most certainly do not approve o a woman or (man) being able to expel a man or (woman) from the family home "merely by making an unsupported accusation of domestic violence"!As Dente has aptly pointed out, law officers are now asked to evaluate and assess certain criteria and arrest when warranted regardless of the victims' willingness to press charges. This seems perfectly reasonable to me as It would seem unlikely that anyone would get arrested just because someone says they had been hit.I honestly do not believe that woman are as malicious and cruel as many here seem to believe. My own experiences have borne out quite the opposite. As far as that youtube video you directed me too... it is shocking, but with no research or studies to back up what these "experts" are saying it is hard to believe that this isn't just propaganda.This belief that women are basically evil, deceptive and underhanded that you and many others hold fast too is as destructive as the false belief some woman have that men are cruel and dangerous and untrustworthy.The truth really is that most people are decent and kind regardless of sex.

War on women Lmao. Trying to give men equal rights is a war on women Lmao. I know feminist don't really believe this. But they must say something to keep up appearances. This attempt to push back a little toward equality is a result of 50 yrs of war on men and mens civil rights. Feminist are so stupid to think anyone would believe this war on women bullshit.

Jane, the video is not propaganda. The things the experienced practitioners and experts say in it are common knowledge. I was familiar with this long ago, especially the fact that utterly bogus child abuse charges spring forth with appalling frequency when American women are divorcing their husbands. I'm sorry that it's hard for you to swallow, but it's the truth. I didn't suggest "women are basically evil, deceptive and underhanded." But this ruthless behavior in these situations is very much a reality. Why don't you try to research what proportion of child molestation charges made during divorce proceedings end up being vindicated?

CONCEPTUAL'S CLAIMS:<br /><br />"Adjudication procedures for domestic violence cases<br />often give short-shrift to due process protections.<br /><br />For example under a Fast Track system used in Colorado, persons charged with domestic violence are not allowed legal representation."<br /><br />TRUTH:<br /><br />(Please state which proceedures you believe violate due process. For more direct response.)<br /><br />Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, citizens are guaranteed "due process" under the law and the term has the same meaning in both. <br /><br />Due process is ensconced in such concepts as fair play, consistency, the right to a fair and impartial trial on the facts in a case, and other fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the ba<x>se of all our civil and political institutions. <br /><br />Equal protection for all citizens, as well as due process, is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.<br /><br />The concept of equal protection means that you should be treated the same as everyone else under all statutes, rules, and regulations. <br /><br />Due process was so rudimentary to the systems of government proposed by our forefathers that it has been incorporated into the constitutions of all the states, including the Colorado State Constitution in Article II Section 25: "Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."<br /><br />At the beginning of our national history it was written in our earliest state constitutions that "all men are born free and equal, and have natural, essential, and unalienable rights." Over time, the phrase "all men" began to be defined as "all Men," meaning "mankind," a word including "women, children, and minorities." This expanding concept was interpreted as granting to all men and women, regardless of race, or ethnicity, or national origin, or age, the right to equal treatment under all the laws and the rules and regulations promulgated under them.<br /><br />Sex equality is guaranteed under the Colorado Bill of Rights in Article II Section 29: "Equality of the sexes. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions on account of sex." <br /><br />In Colorado, there is a "fast-track" system for handling domestic violence cases. If this is your first time being charged with domestic violence, and you are being charged with a misdemeanor, you may be subjected to the "fast-track" program in a variety of ways . (Felony assault charges are not eligible to fast-track.)<br /><br />In Colorado, Domestic violence is not a criminal charge in and of itself. It is a label that can be applied to other criminal charges that enhances the charge, and the punishments that go along with those charges. For example, if you are accused of misdemeanor assault in association with domestic violence, the domestic violence label enhances the charge and will mean a harsher penalty if you are convicted. <br /><br />You may not be facing time in prison, but you may still be sentenced to time in county jail. Punishments for a misdemeanor assault charge with domestic violence may include the following:<br /><br />A restraining order will be issued against you. You may be unable to own a firearm Probation time Domestic violence treatment program Possible restitution to the victim Monetary fines Jail time<br /><br />Misdemeanors are also classified according to class. Class 1 misdemeanors are the most severe, then Class 2, and Class 3 are the least severe. A Class 1 misdemeanor can have up to 24 months of jail time. <br /><br /><br />The fast-track program sends you to court on the next business day after the incident occurred. The first appearance in front of the judge will be regarding the individual's plea, as individuals caught in this process are usually not out on bond. The accused is usually under a no contact order. The notice to appear in court is usually issued by the arresting officer. Alternative sentencing is not an option in this system, and there are profound issues involving constitutional rights in this process. Most sentences for these cases include 24 months of probation and you will likely be forced to attend a 36 week domestic violence treatment program ( The minimum that is ordered consists of 36 hours of domestic violence treatment, which is usually completed at the rate of 2 hours per week.)<br /><br /><br />LEGAL RESPRESENTATION IS ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED EVEN ON "FAST TRACK" CASES. <br /><br />This misconception comes from the fact that :<br />In some Colorado jurisdictions, the deputy district attorney / prosecutor is legally allowed to offer the accused a plea agreement immediately, the result is that a suspect may feel pressured or "forced" to enter a plea before they seek the advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney.

CONCEPTUALS CLAIM:<br />"But VAWA discourages dual arrests, even when both persons show signs of injury. Further aggravating the problem is VAWA's promotion of primary aggressor laws. Now, 24 states have primary aggressor laws, which in practice become a form of gender profiling."<br /><br />TRUTH: <br /><br />To determine who is the primary aggressor, the officer shall consider:<br /><br />(1) The history of domestic abuse between the parties;<br /><br />(2) The relative severity of the injuries inflicted on each person;<br /><br />(3) Evidence from the persons involved in the domestic abuse;<br /><br />(4) The likelihood of future injury to each person;<br /><br />(5) Whether one (1) of the persons acted in self-defense; and<br /><br />(6) Evidence from witnesses of the domestic abuse.<br /><br />(d) A law enforcement officer shall not:<br /><br />(1) Threaten, suggest, or otherwise indicate the possible arrest of all parties to discourage future requests for intervention by law enforcement personnel; or<br /><br />(2) ba<x>se the decision of whether to arrest on:<br /><br />(A) The consent or request of the victim; or<br /><br />(B) The officer's perception of the willingness of the victim or of a witness to the domestic abuse to testify or participate in a judicial proceeding.<br /><br />The police officer or sheriff’s deputy is expected to weigh and balance these factors in determining which person involved in the domestic violence incident is the primary physical aggressor.<br /><br />No one of the factors is determinative. It is possible that one of the factors might suggest that one person is the primary physical aggressor while one or more of the other factors suggests that the other person is the primary physical aggressor. <br /><br />Additionaly Law enforcement officers are not prohibited from arresting both persons who engage in domestic violence against each other, but in most cases the officer should only arrest the primary physical aggressor.<br /><br /><br />WHILE the actual wording of each states laws may be slightly different the policies are fundamentally the same.<br /><br /><br />GENDER PLAYS NO ROLE IN THE DETERMINATION OF PRIMARY AGGRESSOR OR DUAL ARREST.

CONCEPTUAL'S CLAIMS:<br /><br />"Arrest Policies As a result of VAWA, 22 states have mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence, and 8 states that encourage arrest. Such laws often pressure police officers to ignore basic legal considerations of probable cause."<br /><br /><br />THE TRUTH:<br /><br />FALSE! Since Re-Authorization in 2005 VAWA has not advocated for mandatory arrest but asks that states are "pro-arrest". To be clear VAWA influences state legislators, particularly in regard to arrest policy for domestic situations by requiring, pro-arrest programs and policies in police departments, including the arrest programs and policies for protection order violations (Part U, SEC. 2101) in order to receive Federal funding under VAWA grants.<br /><br />To clarify the terms Mandatory and Pro-Arrest are defined within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (of which VAWA is a small part) as:<br /><br />Mandatory arrest requires a police officer to detain a person ba<x>sed on a probable cause determination that an offense occurred and that the accused person committed the offense. ( In terms of VAWA the standard normally reserved for felonies began to be applied to misdemeanors.)<br /><br />Pro-arrest laws consider arrest the preferred, but not required action. An officer who fails to make the arrest must then file a written incident report justifying why no arrest was made. <br /><br />PROBABLE CAUSE IS CLEARLY USED TO DETERMINE THE ACTIONS OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN BOTH MANDATORY AND PRO-ARREST PROCEEDURES.

The article above is quite full of misinformation! To make it easier I have broken the rebuttal up into several sections.<br /><br />CONCEPTUAL'S CLAIM:<br />" many believe that the Violence Against Women Act is at the root of widespread civil rights violations of millions of innocent Americans."<br /><br />REBUTTAL:<br />The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.<br /><br />These rights include:<br /><br />Your First Amendment rights -freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. <br /><br />Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination. <br /><br />Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. <br /><br />Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs. <br /><br />The ACLU, in their July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations." <br /><br />*See bottom for further supporters<br /><br />CONCEPTUAL'S CLAIM: "These complaints come from a broad range of groups:<br />Independent Womens Forum: Men may become alienated from and hostile to the system in the conviction that it is stacked against them."<br /><br />Who is the I.ndependent W.omens F.orum ( IWF).... in 1992, the IWF grew out of the ad hoc group, "Women for Judge Thomas," that was created to defend Clarence Thomas against allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. <br /><br />IWF is "a secular counterpart to Religious Right women’s groups like Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America", although the latter two are antifeminist groups whereas IWF advocates equity feminism, IWF challenges what it calls "radical feminist positions." Some critical writers have asserted that feminist rhetoric is used by the IWF for anti-feminist ends. <br /><br />The IWF has been described as "a virtual 'Who's Who' of Washington's Republican establishment." <br /><br />The organization emphasizes traditional family roles and cultural norms as essential for civil society. In particular, IWF encourages young women to embrace what it presents as a healthy attitude towards dating, courtship, and marriage. <br /><br />Does IWF oppose VAWA as portrayed here? No. <br /><br />THE TRUTH IS <br />IWF clearly states :<br /><br />"there is a real need for a re-evaluation of the law. The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued several reports exposing blatant instances of fraud and abuse in the use of the VAWA grant funds, but there was no discussion of how to address these problems and the need for greater accountability during the law’s reauthorization.<br /><br />Additionally, the law creates duplicate programs for services already offered by other federal agencies and contains millions of dollars in grants that have not been adequately monitored by the Government Accountability Office to determine their effectiveness. Victims and Americans generally are shortchanged by such a lack of oversight.<br /><br />Another problematic aspect of the law receiving inadequate attention is the unprecedented amount of legal authority granted to tribal courts over the prosecution of non-Native Americans. No hearings were held on the ultimate impact of this new provision in the law, and how it might affect the constitutional rights of the accused or set a precedent for the future expansion of tribal legal authority over non-Native Americans.<br /><br />Furthermore, for all the talk about the need to provide assistance to female victims, little attention was given to Democrats’ rejection of Senator Cornyn’s Justice for Victims amendment. This amendment was designed to bring about justice for rape victims and reduce recidivism by addressing the enormous national backlog of DNA rape test kits that would help identify offenders. <br /><br />No bill should receive unconditional support just because the intentions behind it seem noble. If legislators truly care about protecting victims of violence--rather than just appearing to care about protecting victims of violence--they should be willing to openly and honestly deliberate over the most effective and efficient way of achieving this goal.<br /><br />In so easily acquiescing to the climate of fear surrounding deliberation of gender-related issues, submissive Republicans share the blame for the negative consequences of the flawed legislation their capitulation helps to support."<br /><br />They favor reform.<br /><br />CONCEPTUAL'S CLAIM:<br />"Ms. Foundation for Women: Some women are arrested as a result of false accusations by their batterers."<br /><br />Who is Ms. :<br />The Ms. Foundation for Women, a non-profit organization, was founded in 1973 by Gloria Steinem, Patricia Carbine, Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Marlo Thomas. Established at the height of the feminist movement, the Ms. Foundation was created to deliver funding and other strategic resources to organizations that were elevating women's voices and solutions across race and class in communities nationwide. <br /><br />"The Ms. Foundation for Women Builds Women's Collective Power to Ignite Change Across the United States Guided by a vision of a just and safe world where power and possibility are not limited by gender, race, class, sexuality, disability or age, we believe that equity and inclusion are the cornerstones of a true democracy in which the worth and dignity of every person are valued."<br /><br />Ms. Views on VAWA:<br />We are "against the bills Racist, Elitist, Homophobic and Anti-victim components! "<br /><br />"We are saddened to have arrived at a point where we must oppose a VAWA reauthorization bill but feel we must do so for a number of key reasons: 1) the bill rolls back current protections for immigrant victims of violence. Attempts to improve these provisions in the manager’s amendment have not solved dangerous problems with respect to both U-Visas and the self-petitioning process; 2) the bill does not go far enough to extend desperately needed protection to Native women who are being victimized by non-Native abusers, 3) the bill does not contain the Senate passed provisions that will ensure that the LGBT community received access to services; 4) the bill contains several dangerous mandatory minimum provisions, which could have the unintended effect of deterring victims from reporting domestic and sexual violence crimes.<br /><br />In addition to the bill, we would also like to express our specific ob<x>jections to a non-discrimination provision contained in one of the manager’s amendments. Though purporting to be a nondiscrimination provision, the language would actually permit discrimination in the provision of services by religious entities receiving VAWA funding. This, combined with the Adams bill’s troubling exclusion of the LGBT community from anti-discrimination protections could permit discrimination against a community that is already having difficulties accessing services." <br /><br />CONCEPTUAL'S ClAIM:<br />"Eagle Forum: VAWA funds the re-education of judges and law enforcement personnel to teach them how to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of men."<br /><br />Who is Eagle Forum?<br /><br />Eagle Forum is a conservative interest group in the United States founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972, launched as the Eagle Trust Fund for receiving donations related to conservative causes. After the 1972 proposal of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Schlafly reorganized her efforts to defeat its ratification,founding the group "Stop ERA" and starting the Eagle Forum Newsletter. In 1975 Stop ERA was renamed the Eagle Forum. <br /><br />During the 1970s, while Schlafly worked against the Equal Rights Amendment and pro-ERA feminists, she formed a definitive stance on women’s rights in direct opposition to feminist views of the time. She continues to hold these views and seeks, with the Eagle Forum’s help, to implement them as social policy today. She defines E.F. as the "alternative to women's liberation".<br /><br />Eagle Forum members have often worked within the Republican Party Leadership.<br /><br />The organization is opposed to the legalization of abortion, against international oversight from the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, supportive of English-only education in schools, supportive of women's role as "fulltime homemakers", They support those saying Christopher Columbus is a hero. It has also been active in the anti-vaccination movement, particularly fighting mandatory hepatitis B vaccination requirements for newborn babies, and opposition to sex education in the public school system.<br /><br />Schlafly holds the position that men and women are fundamentally different, that nothing can eradicate the differences between men and women. She believes Gender is envisioned as a hierarchal ordering with God and Christ at the top,followed by men, and then women”. Schlafly defends her stance as one necessary to order instead of a threat to equality; she says, “If marriage is to be a successful institution, it must… have an ultimate decision maker, and that is the husband”. According to Schlafly, “It is women’s role to support men in their positions of higher authority through altruism and self-sacrifice”. Schlafly also ob<x>jects to wage and other equality for women in the work force because they destroy mothers’ protection from over-time work, which makes it “more difficult for women to perform their domestic duties”.<br /><br />TRUTH OF EAGLE FORUM AND VAWA :<br /><br />Even Schlafly doesn't actually oppose VAWA but instead wants reform!<br /><br />"The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to Members of Congress who voted for it."<br /><br />Her reforms are many:<br />"For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections."<br /><br />"The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims."<br /><br />"The law's revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: "any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury"<br /><br />"VAWA should encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary, as well as programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs. When the abuse is only minor, divorce and/or prosecution should not be routine or the first choice of dealing with domestic conflict. Minor partner discord should not be over-criminalized."<br /><br />"VAWA should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud and to establish accountability"

Dead spot on CC. Ignore these hateful bigots and keep telling the truth. There just scared that people are starting to wake up and see that feminism and the laws that they rammed through are government are sexist hateful and bigoted just like the feminist commenting here.

Just keep on talking. As usual, I don't see a hoard of supporters here. Just the usual 3 suspects. Just keep talking. You guys have done more to support feminism than any post I could write. Excellent.

Thomas if your dealing with feminist it is considered abuse. If a man gets into a argument with his wife and uses logic he is abusing her according to feminist. Its called domestic violence. If you look at what is considered domestic violence you will find that things like raising your voice and refusing to speak to your wife is domestic violence. That's why the numbers are so screwed up. A man and a woman get into an argument the argument becomes heated and results in shouting. The woman calls the cops and says "i feel threatened" guy goes to jail and is charged with domestic violence. Another case of domestic violence goes into the books. Thanks to feminist many nonviolent actions are called domestic violence.

" If a man gets into a argument with his wife and uses logic he is abusing her according to feminist. Its called domestic violence."That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. "But officer, I was just trying to be logical with my wife!" hahahahaha! Keep on talking, Knightrunner.

Yes it is ridiculous. But so is feminism. Feminist are pushing rules like this. A feminist professor in Japan gave a lecture in which she stated that deleting an ex-girlfriends phone number from your phone is abuse. The feminist idocracy rolls on.

It is not the law that makes it gender specific. It is people under it. Some of us are selfish, have ulterior motives, and would like to manipulate the system. This act with such nonesense laws is so easy to bend one way or another to get someone arrested, or wrongfully convicted at times with no evidence present.

Ummm... I only looked up one case. The Harry Stewart incident in Weymouth, Mass happened THIRTEEN YEARS AGO!!!!!!!<br /><br />13 years.<br /><br />October of 1999.<br /><br />CC, you and I don't often agree on things, but I do consider you to be a rational guy. I didn't look up all the cases... but you can't fight misinformation with misinformation.

More From People Who Are Against Feminism

Personally I don't like feminism for a lot of different reasons but probably the big one is that I think a woman should cook and clean for her man and be there to please him. It's all well and fine if she has a job, education, etc. but at the end of the day she should take care...

I am for equality, so I am against feminism. So many people state that feminism is for equality, but I've read extensively on the movement and it just doesn't truly appear to be now.
I'm shocked by the amount of misinformation feminists today unknowingly perpetuate, the misused...

Feminism can only exist within a rich civilization. It's a byproduct of luxury. The richer the country, the more likely you'll find things like feminism. The poorer the country, the more likely you'll find traditional gender roles. Why? Because traditional gender roles actually...

Watching legislation trying to completely destroy mens civil rights in Australia progressing thru parliament atm.I want out of this miserable country.Why haven't they settled Mars yet? lol. Id rather be done with the whole mudball to be honest.Well nice to meet you all anyhow.